Ken, I suspect as with any of these, the question is the easy thing, the answer will at best be convoluted and likely will never give you the definitive solution. The problem starts with Elegans itself, look at what Bob Axmear says in the HL:

The name 'Elegans' was originally given to a hybrid created by Arends, which was called 'Robusta'. Today the name is used for a variety of different blue sieboldiana-type plants which have been grown from seed in the last century. It should be considered a general name for these plants, and not that of a specific cultivar.

So, the first questions would be: from which of these Elegans types does GE originate and how closely does what you're seeing resemble it? And I think it's futile to try and answer that, 'cause you'll never know.

The only picture in the HL of RB is rather small and doesn't provide enough detail to be able to say with any degree of confidence exactly how it differs from the Elegans type from which GE developed. See where we're going with this.....

IMHO since Elegans applies to a type as opposed to a specific cultivar it's all a crapshoot anyway and you'd be perfectly okay to give it a new name and add to further future confusion....

OH CRUD ..

I KNEW I WAS FORGETTING SOMETHING... THE WHOLE elegans from seed for 2 decades thingee ...

what if the premise was not GE ... BUT SOME OTHER EDGED PLANT.. WITH KNOWN solid HERITAGE ... REVERT BACK TO SOLID.. OR SPORT FORWARD TO NEW SOLID???

KEN

Aden was not completely forthcoming with the truth about his breeding so do you know the source of GE for sure. You would have to start with definitive heritage of GE to even start to work your way back.

WITH KNOWN solid HERITAGE ... REVERT BACK TO SOLID.. OR SPORT FORWARD TO NEW SOLID???

Let's take an example of say 'June'. It came out of Halcyon. BUT, that does not necessarily make an all blue shoot of June a Halcyon. First we have to determine how close it looks to solid origins and whether we have a change in ploidy or not. If it looks different from Halcyon it would and should be considered a sport, but, as the saying goes, it of looks like a duck, talks like a duck and behaves like a duck....

It gets to be a different ball game however when you have solid from variegated from variegated from variegated from solid. Like for example with Revolution. It's quite common to see all green shoots in Revolution, but that sure as heck doesn't make those green shoots a reversion, they're definitely a sport. The solid in Revolution's background is Fortunei Hyacinthina and those green shoots don't look anything like it. There is the common trait in terms of vigor, but that's as far as it goes. It's a different plant, a sport, and should be named differently as such. I call my Revolution's all-green sport 'Green Revolution', what would be easier, simpler or more logical than that?

Then someone believes it is Hyacinthina but is wrong. I think it is to nebulous to get very precise, what it looks like should direct how one considers a different division.

Wouldn't a sport of Revolution be Evolution? :) Don

Wouldn't a sport of Revolution be Evolution?

VERY clever, Don! Love it.....

Hi Ken. Richland Blue is the all blue form of GE, from Van Wade, according to Lemke's database. It's not registered as of yet.
I found the origional info in the Hostasports site:
http://myhostas.net/sports/index.htm

Rox